Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 132. (Read 880461 times)

Question:  Can somebody recall, hopefully with documentation, what Hashfast was charging for Babyjets and Sierras for delivery on 31 January?  

(Or, if there was no batch specifically promised for 31 January, the closest date thereafter?)

Edit:  This might be a nice addition to Cedivad's wiki.  A list of the stated delivery dates (on the website and in the TOS) for each batch and its selling price.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cointerra-announces-its-first-asic-hash-rate-greater-than-500-ghs-269093

Someone wants to do one for HashCrap?

Sure.  I agree that those who sacrificed their claim to the MPP one way or another probably wouldn't be judged by anybody to be owed it.  Speaking for myself, I've never signed any releases or agreed to any postponements.  At one point I asked about a refund for the card, but didn't sign because Hashfast refused to provide a release that did anything but absolve them of "any and all" past, present, and future claims.  I said I would not absolve them of "any and all claims" because even if they refunded the upgrade, they still owed me the MPP.  I said that to them a couple of times, and they refused to reply on point.

I'm thinking at this point that it's whatever legal strategy breaks through first that may determine a lot of this.  Arbitration, the bitcoin recovery suits, or the "forced bankruptcy".  Personally, given my comparatively low level of investment and lack of interest in extended litigation, the only legal strategy that makes sense to far is the "forced bankruptcy" petition.  I kind of like the strategy as a matter of principle too, because if it worked, we would likely all be treated fairly and we would likely learn the truth of what has happened. (Which surely might reveal legal issues including fraud.)

And if Hashfast responds by "paying off" the people in that suit, then if I'm part of it, I will certainly make knowledge of that public, so that others can follow suit and file their own actions.

This is a letter vs. spirit debate. The question is how much lower instance courts are concerned about intends.

Let me play devils advocate a bit:

Many customers fall short, both on letters and intend. They were fooled into accepting revised and rewritten contracts (e.g. refund&release forms) and by doing so they showed compliance with the practices of the company. Either you're blowing the whistle right away or never. Anything in between puts you into a weak position.

I am not defending what HashFast is doing, I am merely pointing out that you need to play the ball persistently in one direction if you want to have a plausible case. Otherwise HashFast (rightfully) can claim that the customer doesn't really know what they want. That's why those mass actions are highly specific to particular customers - because little nuances in the interaction and communication can put a case into a totally different light.

A totally different beast is the question of fraud (intentionally withholding cash or hardware from customers, i.e. taking deliberate actions which harm the revenue of customers) - but that already goes beyond an attempt to recover contractual substance and is a strategy to break their exploitative business model.

Well I continue to send emails about them telling me my next step, which they said would be soon, over a month ago.... *sigh*

Yes, but the MPP promised to protect against network hashrate increases, among other things.  The language used with the MPP creates a reasonable expectation of delivery within a useful timeframe.

There's probably room for debate as to what point (day), exactly, on the network hashrate curve "reasonableness" expired.

But assuming that HF only provides 1.6TH as the MPP for each BJ, I know that the "point of reasonableness" passed some time ago.  The MPP was for hashing power, not space heaters.

I suspect a legal handle could be found, although I'm hardly an expert.  Just my gut feeling.

Guys, there is a new forum which have just opened for exploited HF customers:

http://www.hashfast-forum.com/index.php?p=/

Have order begin November, fcking 7 months agoo, still got nothing as batch 3. No refund so far.

And they still on shipping batch 2.

They even havent refund some of the batch 1 jet?

Finally!

http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/virtual-mining-corporation-and-active-mining-corporation

I think he is ignoring me already. I'm just having fun of the tards who promise that they will commit seppuku if they miss their power estimates

Just ignore him. Mr. "in two weeks" doesn't understand how numbers work.

I start by assuming that we have enough to prove their fraud already, over a legitimate doubt. You don't think so?
Sure, by not bankrupting or by bankrupting as late as possible they would have a lot of time to hide a lot of informations.

Delaying the bankruptcy as long as possible is only positive for them. More resources, more time. It's negative for the creditors, less resources, less profs.

And then what? Bankruptcy? Run and hide? No - then fraud would be obvious and anyone involved would make themselves a prison case. The more likely theory is that they want to get away with civil penalties - if any. As such they need to stay in business, show some level of professionalism and settle the stuff they can't otherwise get rid of one way or the other. At this moment they're just bracing for the impact.

It probably indicates that they are only trying to stay in "business" another few months, the time required to get even more value out of the company via their subterfuges that i'm sure by now are well oiled mechanisms.

All their PR is self-serving, in the sense that their propaganda needs to paint a picture of professionalism and honest mistakes. As such, the recent "apology" must be viewed through the strategic lens. Actually that's good news, because it indicates intend that they want to stay in business. The hat trick HF must perform is to get out of old liabilities with minimal reputational damage, while maximizing returns. HashFast (together with BFL) certainly wrote a new chapter in the history of cannibalistic crowd funding. Let's just hope that it will serve as a warning instead of an example to follow. It's up to the legal system to decide the latter.

Technically the MPP didn't promise a particular batch, so no legal handle there.

I'm looking forward to create a graph with the number of Fedex/DHL/whatever trackings created per day... And superimpose it to a list of news of customers actions...

Something tells me it's gonna be interesting.

Only 2x more efficient? I thought your chip is more than 10x efficient than any other chip out there.

http://hashfast.com/production-update/


Batch 1 orders include MPP and isn't closed until you ship what you promised.

No need to hurry, It's only been ~9 months since I ordered and the network hashrate isn't going anywhere... *cough*

 

https://twitter.com/HashFast/status/460935717401550848

"Shipped today: 165 boards, 5 Sierras, 8 Baby Jets."

I'm wondering what "batch" the boards are from. Probably not going to 2013 customers? (or maybe not even going to customers at all, since that they sold entire 2014 batches with no "community" customers buying?). Ergo, another semilegitimate way of taking assets out of the company?

I'm playing the conspiracy theorist, but it doesn't really hurt being it with HashCrap.